Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 04:25:52 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)  (Read 2739 times)
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« on: August 12, 2012, 02:12:31 am »
Ignore



Members
Senator Scott - Committee Chair
Senator HagridOfTheDeep
Senator Marokai Blue

Current Order of Business:
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment

Topic/Hearing Queue
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment

Completed Tasks
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 09:57:33 pm by Governor Scott »Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2012, 02:15:50 am »
Ignore

What shall we do first, members?  The Government Oversight and Reform Committee is currently taking up court reform, so we can start off with that (as part of our 'joint operation') or take up legislation in the queue.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:46:27 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5041
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2012, 02:12:47 pm »
Ignore

I'm fine with that idea.

If we are going to discuss court reform, I think it may be good to consider what having two additional justices would mean. We would have two extra players on the court, which would still rarely hear cases. We would have to worry about possible allegations of court-packing (though it could be mitigated by delaying the date it would take effect).

The biggest problem with court reform is we seem to lack a collective vision of what the court should be. At the moment it is a largely distance body that overlooks affairs from afar while rarely if ever hearing cases. It acts as a fairly good game referee  and thankfully overlooked political allegiance in the Tweed case.

I suppose in order to lay out a plan for court reform we first need to lay out a vision for what the court ought to be.
Logged

"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories."

-Elrond in J.R. Tolkien's LOTR
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2012, 04:18:46 pm »
Ignore

I'm fine with that idea.

If we are going to discuss court reform, I think it may be good to consider what having two additional justices would mean. We would have two extra players on the court, which would still rarely hear cases. We would have to worry about possible allegations of court-packing (though it could be mitigated by delaying the date it would take effect).

The biggest problem with court reform is we seem to lack a collective vision of what the court should be. At the moment it is a largely distance body that overlooks affairs from afar while rarely if ever hearing cases. It acts as a fairly good game referee  and thankfully overlooked political allegiance in the Tweed case.

I suppose in order to lay out a plan for court reform we first need to lay out a vision for what the court ought to be.

I think that delaying the dates for appointments is going to be the only way to ensure that this isn't just a court-packing scheme, so that can definitely be one of the committee's recommendations.

What do you mean when you say we need to lay out a vision?  The Court already serves a purpose that's long been established, which is exactly what you said it does - that is, being a game referee.  The problems are that it's seldom needed, not all justices write their own opinions for the cases, and because there are only three people on the court, we don't get to hear from many different viewpoints.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 04:27:59 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15452


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2012, 03:19:49 pm »
Ignore

With two failed judicial proposals already, it is probably a better idea to focus on other priorities. The Constitution is difficult to amend and the Court has no significant problems requiring immediate attention. While a five member Court could be interesting and allow more access to the judicial branch for players, I believe our efforts could be best directed at policy measures at this moment in history.
Logged

When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was Jewish
Because I could count, my nose was big, and I kept my bank account fullish
I told my mom, tears blurring my vision
He said, "Mort, you've loved God since before circumcision"
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2012, 10:01:32 pm »
Ignore

I am also growing a bit pessimistic of actually seeing any kind of court reform pass.  Since the Gov't Oversight Committee is thinking about abandoning this, it might be a good idea that we move onto the next topic in the queue.  Still, I would like to at least vote on some kind of a recommendation before we move on.

What do TJ and Seatown think?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 10:08:31 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5041
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2012, 11:54:08 pm »
Ignore

I agree that the only thing we all seem to be in agreement on is requiring each justice to write a public opinion. The rest seems to have just run into too much opposition and divergent interests.
Logged

"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories."

-Elrond in J.R. Tolkien's LOTR
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4443
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2012, 08:06:01 pm »
Ignore

I agree that the only thing we all seem to be in agreement on is requiring each justice to write a public opinion. The rest seems to have just run into too much opposition and divergent interests.
This.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4443
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2012, 08:07:40 pm »
Ignore

We might also consider creating some ways where we can create more cases for the court, for example by having Atlasian government file lawsuits in certain cases rather than legislate(I can't think of other ways attm). I don't think there's any reason to increase number of justices until court sees more cases.
Logged
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30667
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2012, 09:38:45 pm »
Ignore

Sorry to intrude, but a question: could the GM create scenarios for lawsuits?
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2012, 09:39:28 pm »
Ignore

Sorry to intrude, but a question: could the GM create scenarios for lawsuits?

If the GM sues someone, yes. Tongue
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47607


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2012, 04:43:48 pm »
Ignore

Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2012, 08:19:42 pm »
Ignore

In correspondence with the Gov't Oversight and Reform Committee, I will open the vote on committee recommendations.



Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court



On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30205
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2012, 08:21:11 pm »
Ignore

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2012, 08:23:28 pm »
Ignore

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30205
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2012, 08:31:00 pm »
Ignore

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2012, 08:34:14 pm »
Ignore

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2012, 08:41:38 pm »
Ignore

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.

Clarence isn't on this committee.

I know, but he's brought up some concerns.
Logged
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15452


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2012, 08:43:10 pm »
Ignore

Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.
Logged

When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was Jewish
Because I could count, my nose was big, and I kept my bank account fullish
I told my mom, tears blurring my vision
He said, "Mort, you've loved God since before circumcision"
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2012, 08:46:09 pm »
Ignore

Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.

They can do that too, but since Clarence already raised some concerns, they can be worked out just as well in the committee.
Logged
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15452


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2012, 08:50:25 pm »
Ignore

Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.

They can do that too, but since Clarence already raised some concerns, they can be worked out just as well in the committee.

That's fine, whether they are discussed here or on the floor, but my personal opinion is that the concerns he posted are either illegitimate or rooted in ideological opposition to the concept, and cannot be reconciled with the aims of the amendment. I would rather discuss such concerns at greater length with all Senators present, if I am called upon.
Logged

When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was Jewish
Because I could count, my nose was big, and I kept my bank account fullish
I told my mom, tears blurring my vision
He said, "Mort, you've loved God since before circumcision"
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2012, 10:32:40 pm »
Ignore

Once again... Tongue

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4443
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2012, 10:33:39 pm »
Ignore

On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30205
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2012, 07:57:43 pm »
Ignore

I decided to go with the other requested item in the hopes of buying time. Unfortunately the ERA is probably going to get placed in Slot 1 when the Antartic bill gets done, so it may not be that long a time anyway. Therefore I would suggest expediting this recommendation vote, if possible, use "extreme" measures to procure the necessary attentativeness from the members. Wink
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18750
United States
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2012, 09:42:55 pm »
Ignore

Seatown, TJ, PLEASE help us get through the amendment as fast as we can.  Thanks. Tongue

I will be a dick if necessary.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 09:44:51 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines